Maybe someone configured a LTC P2Pool and connected it to a local Bitcoin node instead of a Litecoin node ? I'm a bit surprised it make it through P2Pool and a Litecoin node to be published on the P2P network though.

It was orphaned (maybe only some Litecoin nodes accept this kind of block and there's one of such active on LTC P2Pool).

(LTC)How long should I let it keep saying "Shares: 0" before I get concerned something is wrong?

Restarted p2pool and cgminer, and it was at 0 for ~8 hours yesterday, then miner crashed for some reason, and when I started it back up I got a share. Of course it's been 12 hours now and all payouts have been less than half what they were before it. Host downtime seems very punishing with p2pool.

That's a bug in the block explorer you're using. There is no way for a Litecoin transaction to pay Bitcoin addreses - the network ID isn't even encoded in the block. All addresses in a block are just 160-bit hashes, without any identifying information.

That's a bug in the block explorer you're using. There is no way for a Litecoin transaction to pay Bitcoin addreses - the network ID isn't even encoded in the block. All addresses in a block are just 160-bit hashes, without any identifying information.

You mean, it's a bug of explorer.litecoin.net? If so, then why is that block listed in the p2pool history? And why haven't I got any reward for it?

That's a bug in the block explorer you're using. There is no way for a Litecoin transaction to pay Bitcoin addreses - the network ID isn't even encoded in the block. All addresses in a block are just 160-bit hashes, without any identifying information.

You mean, it's a bug of explorer.litecoin.net? If so, then why is that block listed in the p2pool history? And why haven't I got any reward from it?

It's a real Litecoin-P2Pool block, but the Litecoin explorer is displaying Litecoin addresses as Bitcoin addresses for some reason. It appears to have been orphaned, so you didn't get a payout. The explorer displaying Bitcoin addresses and the block being orphaned might have some common cause, however..

It's a real Litecoin-P2Pool block, but the Litecoin explorer is displaying Litecoin addresses as Bitcoin addresses for some reason. It appears to have been orphaned, so you didn't get a payout. The explorer displaying Bitcoin addresses and the block being orphaned might have some common cause, however..

So I tried the current version of p2pool on a single 5.7GHz Jalapeño with cgminer connecting via stratum. This works out to about 80 diff1 shares per minute. It "works" in a sense of the word, without causing any weird errors or duplicating work that happen with the Avalon but there are huge lags between share submission and responses from p2pool after a while. Watching the CPU usage, I see a spike to 100% of one core whenever a block of transactions comes in and that coincides with the lag to respond to share submission, leading to more stale rejects if that occurs at the wrong time. The CPU in question is a 12 thread 3.4GHz CPU so it is clearly not underpowered. I suspect what happens on the Avalon is simply a grossly exaggerated form of this leading to misbehaviour.

So I tried the current version of p2pool on a single 5.7GHz Jalapeño with cgminer connecting via stratum. This works out to about 80 diff1 shares per minute. It "works" in a sense of the word, without causing any weird errors or duplicating work that happen with the Avalon but there are huge lags between share submission and responses from p2pool after a while. Watching the CPU usage, I see a spike to 100% of one core whenever a block of transactions comes in and that coincides with the lag to respond to share submission, leading to more stale rejects if that occurs at the wrong time. The CPU in question is a 12 thread 3.4GHz CPU so it is clearly not underpowered. I suspect what happens on the Avalon is simply a grossly exaggerated form of this leading to misbehaviour.

So I tried the current version of p2pool on a single 5.7GHz Jalapeño with cgminer connecting via stratum. This works out to about 80 diff1 shares per minute. It "works" in a sense of the word, without causing any weird errors or duplicating work that happen with the Avalon but there are huge lags between share submission and responses from p2pool after a while. Watching the CPU usage, I see a spike to 100% of one core whenever a block of transactions comes in and that coincides with the lag to respond to share submission, leading to more stale rejects if that occurs at the wrong time. The CPU in question is a 12 thread 3.4GHz CPU so it is clearly not underpowered. I suspect what happens on the Avalon is simply a grossly exaggerated form of this leading to misbehaviour.

So I tried the current version of p2pool on a single 5.7GHz Jalapeño with cgminer connecting via stratum. This works out to about 80 diff1 shares per minute. It "works" in a sense of the word, without causing any weird errors or duplicating work that happen with the Avalon but there are huge lags between share submission and responses from p2pool after a while. Watching the CPU usage, I see a spike to 100% of one core whenever a block of transactions comes in and that coincides with the lag to respond to share submission, leading to more stale rejects if that occurs at the wrong time. The CPU in question is a 12 thread 3.4GHz CPU so it is clearly not underpowered. I suspect what happens on the Avalon is simply a grossly exaggerated form of this leading to misbehaviour.

the same thing happens with GPUs while using cgminer (not a cgminer problem, but stratum I would think)

i think i commented on that some months ago

minerd picks up the new work much quicker, and it is better to use phoenix for p2pool, or not use stratum

Dacentec, best deals for US dedicated servers. They regularly restock $20-$25 Opterons with 8-16GB RAM & 2x1-2TB HDD's (ofc, usually lots of other good stuff to choose from). I did a Serverbear benchmark of one of my $20/mo Opteron (June last year), it's here. Have had about a half dozen different servers with Dacentec, & none have failed to sustain at least 40MB/s (burst higher). My favorite is a 12-month rent-to-own ZT Systems 2XL5520 16GB 2x2TB SATA for $40/month (got lucky with the 'off-brand', haven't seen a RTO 2xL5520 for under $50/mo since -- at least for monthly contracts). wholesaleinternet.com has some ancient 2-core intel CPUs @ $10/mo sometimes (I got an Intel Core 2 6300 @ 1.86GHz, with a 250GB HDD with 46000 hours on it, LOL. $20 @ Dacentec is much better, if you can grab one). joesdatacenter.com (same location as Wholesale Internet) also occasionally has specials (or if you don't want to wait, it has an AMD Opteron 170 @ $16/mo).

So I tried the current version of p2pool on a single 5.7GHz Jalapeño with cgminer connecting via stratum. This works out to about 80 diff1 shares per minute. It "works" in a sense of the word, without causing any weird errors or duplicating work that happen with the Avalon but there are huge lags between share submission and responses from p2pool after a while. Watching the CPU usage, I see a spike to 100% of one core whenever a block of transactions comes in and that coincides with the lag to respond to share submission, leading to more stale rejects if that occurs at the wrong time. The CPU in question is a 12 thread 3.4GHz CPU so it is clearly not underpowered. I suspect what happens on the Avalon is simply a grossly exaggerated form of this leading to misbehaviour.

Does a username like ckolivas/2000+10 help?

no, because you'd still get the 6 new works every minute

the ratio of rejects to accepts would be the same

though, it would be nice if everyone over 5ghash or so did 2000 shares, so people at lower rates may actually get something at some point

Dacentec, best deals for US dedicated servers. They regularly restock $20-$25 Opterons with 8-16GB RAM & 2x1-2TB HDD's (ofc, usually lots of other good stuff to choose from). I did a Serverbear benchmark of one of my $20/mo Opteron (June last year), it's here. Have had about a half dozen different servers with Dacentec, & none have failed to sustain at least 40MB/s (burst higher). My favorite is a 12-month rent-to-own ZT Systems 2XL5520 16GB 2x2TB SATA for $40/month (got lucky with the 'off-brand', haven't seen a RTO 2xL5520 for under $50/mo since -- at least for monthly contracts). wholesaleinternet.com has some ancient 2-core intel CPUs @ $10/mo sometimes (I got an Intel Core 2 6300 @ 1.86GHz, with a 250GB HDD with 46000 hours on it, LOL. $20 @ Dacentec is much better, if you can grab one). joesdatacenter.com (same location as Wholesale Internet) also occasionally has specials (or if you don't want to wait, it has an AMD Opteron 170 @ $16/mo).

So I tried the current version of p2pool on a single 5.7GHz Jalapeño with cgminer connecting via stratum. This works out to about 80 diff1 shares per minute. It "works" in a sense of the word, without causing any weird errors or duplicating work that happen with the Avalon but there are huge lags between share submission and responses from p2pool after a while. Watching the CPU usage, I see a spike to 100% of one core whenever a block of transactions comes in and that coincides with the lag to respond to share submission, leading to more stale rejects if that occurs at the wrong time. The CPU in question is a 12 thread 3.4GHz CPU so it is clearly not underpowered. I suspect what happens on the Avalon is simply a grossly exaggerated form of this leading to misbehaviour.

the same thing happens with GPUs while using cgminer (not a cgminer problem, but stratum I would think)

i think i commented on that some months ago

minerd picks up the new work much quicker, and it is better to use phoenix for p2pool, or not use stratum

Yes using getwork with the jalapeño is actually better than using stratum, which is counter-intuitive and adds weight to the argument that there is a problem with p2pool's stratum implementation. Having said that, if forrestv can get one as a donation from BFL, that will benefit everyone because I'm sure there will be incentive on his part to investigate and develop further. Many people have approached me about rewriting p2pool from scratch in c, and as much fun as that sounds, I seriously don't have the time to support another project of this magnitude and would rather see the original author continue it.

So I tried the current version of p2pool on a single 5.7GHz Jalapeño with cgminer connecting via stratum. This works out to about 80 diff1 shares per minute. It "works" in a sense of the word, without causing any weird errors or duplicating work that happen with the Avalon but there are huge lags between share submission and responses from p2pool after a while. Watching the CPU usage, I see a spike to 100% of one core whenever a block of transactions comes in and that coincides with the lag to respond to share submission, leading to more stale rejects if that occurs at the wrong time. The CPU in question is a 12 thread 3.4GHz CPU so it is clearly not underpowered. I suspect what happens on the Avalon is simply a grossly exaggerated form of this leading to misbehaviour.

the same thing happens with GPUs while using cgminer (not a cgminer problem, but stratum I would think)

i think i commented on that some months ago

minerd picks up the new work much quicker, and it is better to use phoenix for p2pool, or not use stratum

Yes using getwork with the jalapeño is actually better than using stratum, which is counter-intuitive and adds weight to the argument that there is a problem with p2pool's stratum implementation. Having said that, if forrestv can get one as a donation from BFL, that will benefit everyone because I'm sure there will be incentive on his part to investigate and develop further. Many people have approached me about rewriting p2pool from scratch in c, and as much fun as that sounds, I seriously don't have the time to support another project of this magnitude and would rather see the original author continue it.

You know, funny you should say that. I was considering doing the same thing ... rewriting in C. It would be quite a project indeed.